BL> It defines the first line if it's not AREA:. That's all it
BL> does. A blank would do the same thing and need no processing.

PE> SOT doesn't "need processing".

BL>   Yes it does. You've written a routine that strips all control lines.
BL> There are five bytes (plus CR) that have to be scanned and a pointer
BL> moved, at the very minimum. 

Yes, if you have a program that is stripping them, that is what
you need to do.  You don't need to in a mailprocessor.

PE> SOT is a real control line. A blank line would become part of
PE> user-text. In fact, that is the reason Frank and I both see a
PE> blank line on your messages. No software knows to strip it out.

BL>   I am only arguing pedantically, the benefit of one extra byte
BL> instead of six, and no processing instead of a single line of 6 bytes.

Just like the "benefit" of not prefixing SEENBY with a 0x01 so that
we save an extra byte?  It's amateurs like YOU who created the
problem of FTS-4 in the first place.

BL>   This is called engineering: using the absolute minimum to get a
BL> desired effect; doing for a dollar what any fool can do for two.

No, it's called amateurism.  Not even understanding that mixing
user-text with control information in a way that cannot separate
the two is just amateur hour.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---